]]>By: herselfhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6741920
Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:07:43 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6741920Newter, I have some basic news for you. A collection of Billionaires already told us who would be elected POTUS and enforced it, two elections in a row. That is how we got Obama, duncel.

{^_^}

]]>By: katablog.comhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6741473
Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:36:58 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6741473Rove’s current proposal lost the last two presidential elections. The GOP echelon FORCED candidates on us that we conservatives did not want. Rove’s plan has been tried and FAILED.

Keep it up GOP and you will lose the entire party.

]]>By: The Great Karl Rove Super PAC Scare : The Other McCainhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6740387
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:13:10 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6740387[...] Allahpundit has further commentary on this theme at Hot Air. But you’ll excuse me for not buying Newt’s new act as populist defender of the Tea Party grassroots. When the entire Tea Party was backing Doug Hoffman in NY-23, Newt was for Dede Scozzafava. [...]
]]>By: xbladehttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6740310
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:38:12 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6740310

…you don’t have a clue…do you troll?

KOOLAID2

Oh, he knows about teabagging alright, lol. Better than most I suspect.

]]>By: Murf76http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6740289
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:28:49 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6740289Any time Newt has an opinion, I can’t help but think that it was also his opinion that he could win this last presidential election.
]]>By: Steve Zhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6740264
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:21:44 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6740264Of the winnable Senate races Republicans lost, Romney carried the states of Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri, so these losses are the fault of the individual candidates, not the Romney campaign.

In Indiana and Missouri, Tea Party candidates made disastrous gaffes after winning their primaries. In Montana and North Dakota, candidates who had previously won statewide House races lost Senate races in the same electorate–what did they do wrong in 2012 that they did right in 2010?

Both the Tea Party and the Establishment have made mistakes in Senate races. Rather than blaming one or the other, we should devise a system by which a candidate has majority support of Republicans before starting the general election campaign.

In many cases, Senate nominees have only minority support within the Party, by taking 30 to 35% of a low-turnout primary between three or more candidates, and have trouble reaching out to the rest of the electorate, including the Republicans who didn’t vote for them in the primary.

One solution would be to set up two-round primaries, such as those in Louisiana and Texas, which gave us Senator Ted Cruz. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-round primary vote, a runoff is held between the two top vote-getters a few weeks later, which would ensure that the nominee has majority support among Republicans. This could also increase the name-recognition of the eventual winner due to the longer primary campaign, and eventually drive up turnout in the runoff. If a candidate is gaffe-prone, the runoff campaign might eliminate a candidate who might otherwise blow the general election like those in Indiana and Missouri.

In some cases, an Establishment candidate wins a primary because two conservative candidates split the Tea Party vote, or a Tea Party candidate wins against two Establishment candidates who each could have won a general election. If a two-round primary is set up, Republican voters get to decide which candidate represents a majority of them, and which candidate has the best chance of winning a general election.

]]>By: MJBrutushttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6740221
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:03:46 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6740221Cry me a river Newt. Rove is doing the job that the wingnuts haven’t the plain sense to do.

And as for the Tea Party, just what the heck is the Tea Party any more? It started out as a non-partisan group in favor of limited government and fiscal restraint. It hasn’t been that for years. Nobody even knows who is in the “Tea Party” and who isn’t. Consider Rubio. He was a Tea Partier and according to many (including Rubio) he still is. Yet Rand Paul decided that he isn’t and needed to provide his very own Tea Party response to the SOYU. Did Rubio have his Tea Party card revoked but have the revocation lost in the mail? Perhaps he’s on double secret probation from the party? Oh the tangled webs.

I think you got me wrong. I am not opposed to having space exploration as a national rallying point, or even as a budget expense item. Had Gingrich delivered this message elsewhere, or even included it in his platform, I’d applaud it (sure beats “Muslim outreach” we have now). What I am opposed to is the pandering – anywhere, to any group, for any reason. Romney bought me by not pandering, but perhaps I mistook political ineptitude for honesty…

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM

No, I’m sorry, I don’t believe I have you wrong at all. You drank the kool-aid. Giving a speech about putting a base on the moon…FROM CAPE CANAVERAL is not pandering. It is THE MOST APPROPRIATE venue from which to make that suggestion. Allowing anyone to suggest or assert otherwise is known as drinking the Fifth Column Treasonous Media kool-aid. It is a complete and total failure to grasp the nature of appropriate venue.

One does not go to Sea World and talk about space exploration. One does not go to Jerusalem to give lectures on how the Holocaust was a fraud. There are venues where it is inappropriate to give certain speeches, and their are equally venues where it is especially appropriate to give certain speeches. There is absolutely no more of an appropriate venue to give a speech about building a base on the moon then Cape Canaveral/Cape Kennedy.

That settles it. You are either a management plant to irk everyone here and boost views, or you’re 14 years old. Which is it? You write like a nascent adolescent so it has to be one of the two options.

No you don’t get it. Romney has been a loser for decades. He stinks at campaigning and always has. Why you guys chose not to notice that little fact is a mystery. It isn’t that he’s rich. Most of those running are in fact very wealthy. It is that he doesn’t connect to anyone. Bush was wealthy too, but he could connect to people while Romney flails sounding like a cartoon parody, or worse.

Romney was never going to win and from what his son said, he didn’t really want to.

O.K., I get it. You don’t like Romney, you supported Gingrich in the primary, and you agreed with his approach. Perhaps Tea Party favorite Newt will run again in 2016 supported by small 5,10, and 20 dollar donations from the grass roots. Without Romney’s SuperPac to steamroll over him, he might just win this time.

but political media of any sort has trouble reaching low-information voters by definition.”

We weren’t beat by “low information voters” We were beat by folks who hate responsibility, want free lunches, guilt free “lust is us” life styles, the culture of death crowd, or just too many of the “aren’t we special” folks, those well educated, er, indoctrinated, perfect professionals who filled those New England ballets with proof of their lack of prejudice and their tolerance for anything the left says makes you better than everyone else.

There’s a bunch of DC insiders who have gone through the revolving door to consider.

And ‘compromisers’ who think that ‘compromise’ is a goal in and of itself, not questioning what it is they are compromising on.

The R Party became the Whigs this last cycle, its still twitching due to size but that’s about it, as the Elites resist change that is sorely needed within the Party. The problem is in the structure of the Party: it is a Progressive, top-down structure.

That only goes away once the State Parties get together and change the necessary documents to turn the highest levels into unpaid advisory positions that no prior office holder can be in, and that no one can be in for more than four years. Basically kill off the RNC and all its overhead as it is today and let the State levels figure it out for themselves. That means National candidates will actually have to deal with highly different organizations that can’t be bought nor intimidated from the central committee. That means you lose much of your voice in the Party, Newt.

But the Party members regain theirs and start to ramp up the volume.

That Party wouldn’t do things you would like it to do… sucks, that. Its the only way for the name brand to survive. The Party itself is dead in the Elite Head and that Head must go. A State-based party doesn’t need an RNC. And they don’t need the Elites that populate it, either.

]]>By: Don Lhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/20/gingrich-we-cant-let-karl-rove-and-a-bunch-of-billionaires-handpick-gop-candidates-for-senate/comment-page-1/#comment-6739915
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:29:40 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=245539#comment-6739915“If you shut down Rove, you also shut down the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity”

This is like assuming that all mushrooms are either edible or poisonous. Like Pacs, there are both, good and bad. This conservative is willing to bet that he knows the difference(or at least should be allowed to have a choice)I believe that Rove also knows the difference and he’s looking to poison us on behalf of his sanctimonious elitist bosses in the GOP.

I think it’s time to let the whole thing burn, and those of us who are prepared just sit back and let the herd thin…

Seven Percent Solution on February 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I’ll be honest – and with all due respect – I simply don’t understand this anarchical spirit that has crept into some Conservative circles. Has it developed from a Rand-ian influence (ie, taking Atlas Shrugged as a manual for life)? Or from somewhere else?

I think there is a difference between a Traditional Conservative’s clear-eyed aprreciation for the fallen nature of the world and something that approaches an almost mischievous nihilism.